CIPLA VS. NOVARTIS
Prayer in W.P.No.24759/2006: Writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of declaration declaring that section 3(d) of the Patent Act, 1970 as substituted by the Patents (Amendment)Act, 2005 (Act 15/2005) is non-compliant with the TRIPSAgreement and/or is unconstitutional being vague, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the second respondent to allow the Patent Application bearing No.1602/MAS/98 filed by the petitioner. Prayer in W.P.No.24760/2006: Writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of declaration declaring that section 3(d) of the Patent Act, 1970 as substituted by the Patents (Amendment)Act, 2005 (Act 15/2005) is non-compliant with the TRIPSAgreement and/or is unconstitutional being vague, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
COMMON ORDER
The writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and
the same. In the first writ petition, Novartis – a foreign company represented by its Indian Power of Attorney holder, is the writ petitioner. In the second writ petition, Novartis India represented by its power agent is the writ petitioner. The respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration that section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, amended by Patents(Amendment) Act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. However, in the first writ petition, there was an additional prayer in addition to the relief asked for. The additional prayer was to direct the second respondent in that writ petition-namely, the Controller General of Patents and Designs, to allow the patent application bearing No.1602/NAS/98 to file